International Law Dissertation Topics

We see international law shaping borders, markets, rights, and wartime decisions every week, from fresh sanctions packages to climate loss-and-damage funds and new cyber norms. We work with students who need topics that are original, manageable, and well-sourced, and we know how fast this field moves across human rights, trade and investment, environmental governance, technology, migration, oceans, and space. We set out today to offer a clear, useful shortlist of dissertation ideas you can take straight to a supervisor.

We present concise topics with focused angles that lend themselves to solid methods and accessible materials. We organize the list by subfields so you can scan what fits your interests and timeline. We keep the scope realistic for a master’s or early PhD project.

Best International Law Dissertation Topic Ideas

We conclude with ideas for an International Law Dissertation, which you can adapt to your own jurisdiction or case study.

1. Algorithmic Defamation and Hallucinated Facts: Auditing and Liability for Generative Models

We quantify defamation incidence in large language model outputs across task types and prompt classes; We identify causal drivers of defamatory hallucinations using intervention experiments; We evaluate the efficacy of guardrails and retrieval grounding in suppressing false personal claims; We compare liability allocation models across jurisdictions for developers, deployers, and users; We prototype an open audit protocol for reproducible defamation risk assessment.

2. Humor as a Shield: The Defamation Boundary of Memetic Satire and Irony in Networked Platforms

We experimentally estimate how jurors, moderators, and audiences interpret satire as a defense to defamation; We measure cross-cultural misclassification of sarcasm and its legal consequences; We model the chilling effects of ambiguity on whistleblowing and investigative commentary; We test design interventions (labels, context panels) that reduce defamatory misreadings without suppressing humor.

3. Immutable Libel: Governance of Defamation Takedown in Decentralized Ledgers and IPFS

We map technical and legal pathways for content redress in immutable systems; We evaluate zero-knowledge proof mechanisms to verify defamatory content without revealing it publicly; We simulate fork-based and pinning-policy remedies and their social feasibility; We survey node operators’ norms and incentives regarding contested content; We propose a cross-chain notice-and-action standard for defamatory material.

4. Avatar-Libel in Persistent Virtual Worlds: Gesture-Based Defamation and Evidentiary Standards

We construct a taxonomy of avatar gestures and spatial behaviors that convey defamatory assertions; We test the reliability of evidentiary capture (replay buffers, cryptographic proofs) for in-world incidents; We analyze jurisdictional clashes when avatars, servers, and victims span borders; We co-design moderation protocols with users to balance expression, parody, and reputational safety.

5. Pricing Reputation Risk: A Market for Defamation Insurance for Creators and Small Newsrooms

We build actuarial models that price defamation exposure using NLP-derived risk features; We test for moral hazard when insured actors receive pre-publication review; We simulate premium subsidies and pooled risk mechanisms to expand access; We interview underwriters and reinsurers to identify data gaps; We propose regulatory guardrails to prevent coverage from chilling public-interest reporting.

6. Coordinated Defamation Campaigns as Competition Strategy: Detecting and Deterring Corporate Smear Networks

We detect signatures of coordinated inauthentic behavior targeted at reputational harm; We estimate short- and long-run stock, hiring, and procurement impacts of smear campaigns; We analyze the intersection of antitrust, unfair competition, and defamation doctrines; We evaluate the deterrent effect of litigation, platform enforcement, and disclosure regimes; We prototype early-warning systems for firms and regulators.

7. Can One Defame a Machine? Remedies for Reputational Harms to Algorithmic Services and Synthetic Identities

We measure user trust and adoption shifts after false claims about algorithmic systems; We delineate boundaries among defamation, product disparagement, and trademark dilution when the “victim” is non-human; We develop doctrinal tests for standing and harm quantification; We pilot labeling and transparency remedies that correct misinformation about automated services.

8. Self-Defamation for Reach: When Influencers Seed False Rumors About Themselves

We model incentive structures that make self-defamation a profitable attention strategy; We detect self-originated rumor cascades using stylometry, network motifs, and timing patterns; We estimate legal exposure and platform penalties relative to engagement gains; We test disclosure and verification tools that dampen perverse incentives; We assess audience backlash and long-term reputation effects.

9. Contaminated Corpora: Defamation Embedded in Synthetic and Augmented Training Data

We trace how defamatory statements propagate from hybrid (real+synth) datasets into model outputs; We quantify risk amplification under common augmentation pipelines; We evaluate data cleansing, redaction, and provenance tooling at scale; We propose warranty, indemnity, and audit clauses for data vendors; We test post-training safety layers that specifically target defamatory content.

10. Algorithmic Restitution: Personalized Correction Delivery After Defamation Events

We design algorithms that identify and reach the exact audiences exposed to defamatory claims; We estimate the causal efficacy of targeted corrections versus public retractions on reputation repair; We evaluate fairness, privacy, and due process constraints in corrective dissemination; We propose statutory safe harbors for platforms implementing algorithmic restitution; We run field trials with newsroom and platform partners.

11. State Responsibility for Space Debris Created by Private Actors — Research questions and approach

We propose to examine how existing doctrines of state responsibility adapt to collisions and cascading debris generated by privately operated megaconstellations. We ask (a) whether and how a state can be held internationally responsible for loss or damage caused by privately launched debris, (b) how due diligence obligations apply to private actors under the Outer Space Treaty and customary international law, and (c) what remedial frameworks (liability, compensation, mitigation funds) are compatible with current space law. We will map treaty obligations, state practice, and arbitral/state decisions, and we will use comparative regulatory analysis and scenario modelling to propose doctrinal and institutional reforms.

12. Transboundary Climate Migration and the Right to Asylum — Research questions and approach

We propose to investigate whether and how existing refugee and human-rights regimes can be interpreted to protect persons displaced across borders by slow-onset climate impacts. We ask (a) what legal tests better capture cross-border climate displacement compared with persecution-based refugee law, (b) whether states have positive obligations to admit or protect climate migrants under human-rights treaties, and (c) what cooperative regional mechanisms could reconcile sovereignty with protection. We will combine treaty interpretation, state practice surveys, and case-law analysis, and we will conduct comparative policy design informed by migration data and human-rights impact assessments.

13. Attribution, Trade Measures, and Cyber Operations — Research questions and approach

We propose to study the interaction between cyber-attack attribution, countermeasures, and the legality of trade-restrictive responses. We ask (a) when can a state lawfully adopt trade sanctions or tariff measures in response to cyber operations attributed to another state or non-state actor, (b) how do WTO obligations intersect with the right of countermeasures and self-help in cyberspace, and (c) what evidentiary standards should govern attribution for wrongful act determinations affecting trade. We will conduct doctrinal analysis of WTO texts, state practice, and opinio juris, and we will develop legal thresholds and evidentiary frameworks through hypothetical incident analysis.

14. Blue Carbon Credits, Maritime Zones, and Coastal State Sovereignty — Research questions and approach

We propose to assess the legal status of blue carbon (sequestered carbon in coastal and marine ecosystems) with respect to maritime zones and coastal-state rights. We ask (a) whether blue carbon projects can create entitlements affecting continental shelf or exclusive economic zone resource claims, (b) how carbon-credit schemes interact with UNCLOS rights and duties, and (c) what governance models reconcile climate finance with coastal state sovereignty and biodiversity obligations. We will analyze UNCLOS provisions, climate finance instruments, and coastal-state legislation, and we will model contractual and customary solutions for equitable benefit-sharing.

15. Indigenous Consent and Transboundary Water Treaties — Research questions and approach

We propose to explore the legal weight of indigenous free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in multilateral treaties governing shared rivers and aquifers. We ask (a) how states negotiating transboundary water agreements are legally obliged to consult and obtain consent from indigenous peoples affected beyond a single jurisdiction, (b) whether FPIC can form a constraint on treaty-making or treaty implementation, and (c) what procedural innovations can operationalize cross-border indigenous involvement. We will combine treaty interpretation, indigenous rights jurisprudence, and interviews with indigenous representatives to draft procedural models for inclusive treaty processes.

16. Autonomous Weapons Systems, Command Responsibility, and Non-State Technical Operators — Research questions and approach

We propose to analyze the applicability of command and superior responsibility doctrines to use-of-force decisions made by autonomous systems developed, owned, or deployed by private military contractors. We ask (a) how international humanitarian law attributes responsibility when algorithmic targeting decisions lead to unlawful killings, (b) whether commanders can be held liable for negligence in deploying opaque AI systems, and (c) how criminal law, state responsibility, and regulatory liability should be apportioned among developers, operators, and states. We will perform doctrinal analysis, review military procurement practices, and propose a hybrid accountability model grounded in existing IHL and criminal-law precedents.

17. Cross-Border Data as Repatriable Cultural Property — Research questions and approach

We propose to investigate whether and how digital cultural artifacts (including indigenous datasets and community-generated digital heritage hosted abroad) can be treated as repatriable cultural property under international law. We ask (a) what legal bases exist to demand return or control of cultural datasets held in foreign servers, (b) how privacy, intellectual property, and cultural-rights regimes intersect in repatriation claims, and (c) what institutional mechanisms could effect restorative transfers of digital heritage. We will synthesize cultural-property law, data-protection regimes, and rights-based frameworks, and we will design model treaty clauses and restitution procedures.

18. International Humanitarian Law and Human Enhancement Technologies on the Battlefield — Research questions and approach

We propose to examine how enhancements to soldiers’ cognitive or physical capacities (pharmacological, neural implants) change legal assessments under IHL of combatant status, proportionality, and humane treatment. We ask (a) whether enhanced combatants present new obligations for opposing forces, (b) how IHL principles apply to parties who gain supernormal capacity through technology, and (c) whether new rules are needed to regulate augmentation research, deployment, and post-conflict rehabilitation. We will analyze IHL texts and doctrine, review military R&D policies, and apply normative risk-assessment methods to propose regulatory guardrails.

19. Sovereign Debt Restructuring as a Mechanism for Environmental Reparations — Research questions and approach

We propose to explore designing sovereign debt restructuring instruments that incorporate enforceable environmental remediation obligations for debtor states impacted by multinational extractive harm. We ask (a) how creditor rights and sovereign immunity doctrines can be reconciled with conditional debt swaps for remediation, (b) what international legal instruments can ensure accountability for environmental outcomes post-restructuring, and (c) how investor-state dispute settlement should treat compliance-linked debt instruments. We will combine international financial law analysis, case studies of debt-for-nature swaps, and drafting of model restructuring clauses with monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.

20. Digital Currencies, Microstate Regulation, and Territorial Jurisdiction — Research questions and approach

We propose to analyze how microstates and small jurisdictions use regulatory frameworks for digital currencies to exercise or expand territorial jurisdiction and fiscal sovereignty. We ask (a) what limits international law places on microstate financial regulatory autonomy when their regimes generate cross-border harms, (b) how states’ jurisdictional principles apply to decentralized finance domiciled in low-capacity jurisdictions, and (c) what cooperative regulatory standards could mitigate regulatory arbitrage without undermining microstate rights. We will undertake comparative legal research, analyze state practice and treaty responses, and propose model multilateral safeguards balancing autonomy and systemic stability.

21. State responsibility for emergent harms caused by autonomous weapons swarms

We ask: What thresholds of control and foreseeability trigger state responsibility for harms caused by loosely coordinated autonomous weapon swarms?; How do existing attribution doctrines apply to collective, decentralized machine actions crossing borders?; What evidentiary standards should tribunals adopt to assess causation and intent in swarm incidents?
We will pursue doctrinal analysis of state responsibility and IHL, simulate swarm incident scenarios, interview military lawyers and AI engineers, and propose a refined attribution framework and evidentiary checklist for tribunals.

22. Maritime baselines and submerged states: legal consequences of statehood loss from sea-level rise

We ask: How should baselines, continental shelves and maritime zones be treated when a state’s land territory becomes permanently submerged; Does statehood persist and what legal mechanisms can preserve maritime rights for former-territorial states?; What institutional remedies can the international legal order craft to protect entitlements of displaced island populations?
We will combine treaty and ICJ jurisprudence review, geospatial modelling of baseline scenarios, doctrinal argumentation on state continuity, and policy drafting of adaptive instruments (e.g., maritime trusteeships, transferable EEZ rights).

23. Private digital asset seizures and the international law of sanctions enforcement

We ask: To what extent do cross-border private seizures of cryptocurrency and other digital assets by non-state actors constitute extrajudicial sanctions under international law?; How do principles of due process, sovereign immunity and non-intervention apply to private cyber asset enforcement?; What regulatory frameworks could reconcile private enforcement with state responsibility?
We will map prominent private seizure incidents, analyze applicable public international norms and domestic enforcement laws, conduct interviews with exchanges and compliance officers, and propose harmonized standards for due process and liability allocation.

24. Cyber-occupation: applying the law of occupation to sustained control of foreign information infrastructure

We ask: When does persistent external control of a state’s critical networks amount to “occupation” under the law of belligerent occupation?; What are the legal consequences for rights, duties and protections where physical territory is unaffected but effective authority over essential systems is lost?; How should humanitarian and human-rights protections adapt to cyber-occupation contexts?
We will synthesize IHL doctrine, construct doctrinal tests of “effective control” in cyberspace, analyze state practice and opinio juris, and develop operational guidelines for humanitarian actors and occupying powers.

25. Reconciling investor-state arbitration with intergenerational climate obligations

We ask: How can investment treaties and arbitral practice be recalibrated to permit states to undertake mandatory climate measures without triggering disproportionate investor claims?; What doctrines (necessity, margin of appreciation, public interest defenses) can be developed to prioritize future-generation rights?; Can treaty drafting innovations create durable investor protections that also enforce intergenerational climate duties?
We will review arbitration case law, model treaty clauses that embed climate duties and defences, conduct doctrinal impact assessments, and propose reform templates for BITs and investment chapters.

26. Space-mining activities, state authorization, and direct obligations for private actors in international law

We ask: What legal duties should attach directly to private space-mining corporations under current international law, and how do such duties interact with state authorization and responsibility?; How can liability, environmental protection and benefit-sharing be structured to reflect the common heritage and commercial realities?
We will analyze the Outer Space Treaty framework, examine national licensing models, interview industry stakeholders, propose a hybrid regulatory architecture assigning direct obligations and a state supervision checklist, and draft model licensing conditions.

27. Admissibility and probative value of AI-generated evidence in international criminal proceedings

We ask: What procedural safeguards and evidentiary standards should international criminal tribunals adopt for AI-generated forensic outputs and synthetic media?; How should chain-of-custody, algorithmic transparency and expert validation be operationalized to prevent miscarriages of justice?
We will review existing tribunal practice, run controlled admissibility experiments with simulated AI evidence, consult forensic and AI experts, and draft procedural rules and bench guidance for admissibility, authentication and expert testimony.

28. Rapid customary norm formation in cyberspace: empirical mapping of opinio juris among states and tech actors

We ask: How does opinio juris form at accelerated pace in cyber norms compared with traditional domains, and what role do non-state technological actors play in shaping or signaling state practice?; What empirical markers reliably indicate emergent customary rules in cyberspace?
We will compile a corpus of state statements, diplomatic notes, and corporate conduct; apply computational text analysis and network mapping to detect patterns of converging practice; and propose indicators and a timeline model for fast-formed cyber customary law.

29. Transboundary aquifer governance during post-conflict state fragility

We ask: How do post-conflict institutional weaknesses affect negotiated governance of transboundary aquifers and what legal mechanisms can secure sustainable management under fragility?; Can third-party trusteeships or temporary international regimes bridge governance gaps while respecting sovereignty?
We will conduct comparative field case studies of post-conflict aquifer basins, combine hydrological modelling with legal design, interview local and international water managers, and propose contingency governance models including fiduciary stewardship and phased transition agreements.

30. Reparations and remedies for corporate conduct contributing to armed conflict under international human rights and humanitarian law

We ask: What legal bases exist to hold multinational corporations accountable for materially contributing to armed conflict and to secure reparations for affected populations?; How can transnational litigation, investor-state frameworks and home-state extraterritorial remedies be mobilized to provide effective remedy?
We will analyze case law and treaty regimes, map corporate supply chains and modes of contribution, evaluate existing domestic and international remedy mechanisms, and design a practical multi-track strategy (litigation, negotiated settlements, home-state enforcement) to improve reparative outcomes.

31. Legal Status and Liability of Autonomous Salvage Robots on the High Seas

We pose research questions: (1) We ask whether existing admiralty law can recognize autonomous salvage robots as agents capable of creating salvage rights; (2) We ask how liability should be allocated between manufacturers, operators and flag states when robot intervention causes environmental damage; (3) We ask what due-diligence obligations coastal states can impose on operators of autonomous salvage assets. We outline how to work on this topic: We will map international conventions (LLMC, Salvage Convention, UNCLOS) against robotics and product liability regimes, conduct comparative analysis of national laws authorizing maritime autonomy, model liability allocation scenarios, and interview maritime insurers and salvage operators to build policy recommendations.

32. Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights to Transnational Climate Litigation Against Sovereign Wealth Funds

We pose research questions: (1) We ask whether and how human rights obligations can be invoked extraterritorially against sovereign wealth funds financing fossil fuel projects abroad; (2) We ask what legal tests courts could adopt to determine a fund’s nexus to human-rights-impacting conduct; (3) We ask what remedies and jurisdictional strategies plaintiffs can pursue when the defendant enjoys state immunity. We outline how to work on this topic: We will analyze case law on extraterritorial human rights, sovereign immunity doctrine, and investment-state finance, compile sovereign wealth fund governance practices, and propose a legal framework supported by doctrinal analysis and hypothetical litigation strategies.

33. International Legal Regimes for Cross-Border Genetic Data Flows in Pandemic Research

We pose research questions: (1) We ask what international legal instruments govern the cross-border transfer of human genetic data for pandemic research and whether they adequately balance privacy and global health; (2) We ask how data sovereignty claims by low- and middle-income states interact with benefit-sharing obligations; (3) We ask what model data governance mechanisms can enable rapid scientific sharing while protecting rights. We outline how to work on this topic: We will review international health law (WHO instruments), data protection treaties, and Nagoya Protocol interactions, map national export-control policies for genomic data, and design a comparative policy toolbox combining legal drafting and stakeholder consultations.

34. Arbitration of Biodiversity Offsets: Enforceability and Public Interest Constraints in Investor-State Disputes

We pose research questions: (1) We ask whether investor-state arbitration tribunals can and should assess the legality and adequacy of biodiversity offset schemes as public-interest environmental measures; (2) We ask what standards of review tribunals should apply when offsets are used to justify permitted environmental damage; (3) We ask how arbitral awards can incorporate adaptive management and long-term monitoring obligations. We outline how to work on this topic: We will systematically review ICSID and UNCITRAL awards involving environmental permits, analyze domestic offset frameworks, propose doctrinal criteria for judicial review in arbitration, and draft model arbitral clauses that incorporate environmental safeguards.

35. Rights and Responsibilities of Artificially Created Microstates in Unregulated Archipelagos

We pose research questions: (1) We ask under what conditions an artificially constructed archipelagic microstate could qualify for statehood under the Montevideo criteria and UNCLOS; (2) We ask how recognition politics and environmental obligations intersect when new land is created in disputed waters; (3) We ask what custom and treaty adaptations are necessary to regulate microstate formation by private actors. We outline how to work on this topic: We will analyze statehood doctrine, recent cases of artificial land reclamation, UNCLOS maritime entitlement rules, and propose legal tests and treaty amendments; we will also simulate diplomatic recognition scenarios and state practice tracking.

36. Regulating Deep-Sea Digital Infrastructure: Legal Protection for Submarine Data Centers and Cables

We pose research questions: (1) We ask how existing law of the sea protects submarine data centers and adjacent cable infrastructure from interference and exploitation; (2) We ask whether new legal categories are needed for subsea digital installations distinct from traditional cables and pipelines; (3) We ask how coastal and flag states’ security concerns can be balanced with freedom of navigation and data security. We outline how to work on this topic: We will map technical architectures of submarine data centers, analyze UNCLOS provisions and state practice on cables and installations, engage cyberlaw frameworks, and produce draft legal language for protection, inspection and incident-response regimes.

37. International Legal Responses to Climate-Induced Statelessness of Low-Lying Indigenous Communities

We pose research questions: (1) We ask how international refugee and human-rights frameworks can be adapted to protect indigenous peoples who lose effective state territory due to sea-level rise; (2) We ask whether new forms of collective legal personality or portable citizenship can be recognized under international law; (3) We ask what obligations neighboring states and the international community owe for relocation and cultural preservation. We outline how to work on this topic: We will synthesize climate displacement scholarship, analyze refugee law limitations, examine indigenous rights instruments, interview affected communities, and draft legal proposals for mobile citizenship, protection corridors, and cultural-preservation obligations.

38. Cyber Peacekeeping: Legal Mandate Design and Rules of Engagement for UN Operations in Cyberspace

We pose research questions: (1) We ask what legal authority the UN Security Council can lawfully confer for peacekeeping operations to act in cyberspace; (2) We ask how rules of engagement for cyber peacekeepers can be designed to respect sovereignty, non-intervention and human rights; (3) We ask how attribution challenges should influence mandate scope and enforcement mechanisms. We outline how to work on this topic: We will review UN practice, mandate language, and state positions; develop legal criteria for cyber engagement thresholds; draft model mandate clauses and operational ROEs; and test them through tabletop exercises with cyber and legal experts.

39. Transboundary Recognition of Indigenous Customary Fishing Rights in High Seas Fisheries Management

We pose research questions: (1) We ask whether and how indigenous customary fishing rights can be recognized and enforced beyond national Exclusive Economic Zones through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs); (2) We ask what evidentiary standards and participatory mechanisms are necessary to adjudicate customary claims in multilateral fora; (3) We ask how customary rights can be reconciled with conservation measures and the duty to cooperate. We outline how to work on this topic: We will compile case studies of indigenous high-seas practices, analyze RFMO rules and international fisheries law, propose procedural reforms for customary-claim recognition, and design templates for co-management agreements.

40. Legal Accountability for Geoengineering Experiments Conducted by Private Corporations in International Airspace

We pose research questions: (1) We ask what international legal norms govern deliberate climatic interventions launched from or affecting international airspace when undertaken by private entities; (2) We ask how liability, consent and environmental impact assessment obligations should be allocated among states, corporations and affected third states; (3) We ask what enforcement and transparency mechanisms the international community can deploy to deter unilateral experimental geoengineering. We outline how to work on this topic: We will assess air law, environmental treaties (ENMOD, CBD), and space/atmosphere governance gaps, build regulatory proposals for licensing and liability, and create a multi-stakeholder compliance architecture including monitoring, sanctions and emergency rollback protocols.

41. Legal Status and Liability of Carbon Dioxide Removal Infrastructure on the Continental Shelf

We propose to interrogate whether large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) facilities sited on the continental shelf create new obligations under the law of the sea and state responsibility. Research questions: (1) Do subseabed CDR installations qualify as installations or structures under UNCLOS and binding coastal-state jurisdiction rules? (2) How should transboundary seepage or leakage of stored CO2 be attributed and remedied under international liability regimes? (3) Can states lawfully authorize private CDR operators to exercise quasi-regulatory powers on the continental shelf? Overview of how to work on this topic: We will map relevant UNCLOS provisions, examine state practice and coastal permitting regimes, analyze environmental protection instruments and transboundary pollution jurisprudence, and develop doctrinal arguments supported by technical literature on leakage risks and monitoring standards.

42. Customary International Law Formation by Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) in Maritime Rescue Operations

We examine whether sustained, rule-governed rescue actions by blockchain-based DAOs at sea can contribute to new customary international law norms. Research questions: (1) Can persistent, coordinated conduct by non-state DAOs constitute state practice or analogous evidence of opinio juris? (2) How should courts and tribunals weigh digital records and smart-contract enforcement as evidence of normative belief? (3) What accountability gaps arise when DAOs perform search-and-rescue functions across jurisdictions? Overview of how to work on this topic: We will collect case studies of DAO-coordinated maritime rescues, analyze doctrinal standards for custom formation, assess evidentiary value of on-chain records, and propose frameworks for integrating non-state digital practice into customary law assessments.

43. Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement to Climate-Displaced Persons Found in Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)

We explore whether and how coastal states owe non-refoulement duties to migrants intercepted or encountered in their EEZs due to climate-induced displacement. Research questions: (1) Does the spatial scope of non-refoulement extend to persons intercepted in the EEZ prior to reaching territorial waters? (2) How do search-and-rescue obligations interact with asylum protections for climate migrants at sea? (3) What standards of proof and procedural safeguards should apply to climate-related protection claims made aboard vessels in the EEZ? Overview of how to work on this topic: We will synthesize international refugee and human-rights law, UNCLOS obligations, state practice in interception and SAR, and emerging jurisprudence on climate displacement to propose normative and procedural safeguards.

44. State Responsibility for Algorithmic Bias in Predictive Policing Tools Used Extraterritorially by Security Contractors

We investigate the international-legal consequences when states authorize private security contractors to deploy algorithmic predictive policing overseas and those tools produce discriminatory outcomes. Research questions: (1) When does biased algorithmic conduct by a contractor amount to an internationally wrongful act attributable to the state? (2) What due-diligence obligations do states have to prevent algorithmic discrimination abroad? (3) What remedies and standards of proof are appropriate for victims of extraterritorial algorithmic harms? Overview of how to work on this topic: We will analyze state-agent attribution doctrine, human-rights due-diligence norms, case law on private actor conduct, and technical literature on algorithmic bias to design doctrinal tests and remedial mechanisms.

45. Transnational Enforcement of Domestic Court Injunctions Against Cyber Mercenaries and Private Offensive Cyber Operators

We assess legal mechanisms for enforcing domestic injunctions (freezes, sanctions, takedown orders) against cyber mercenaries operating across borders. Research questions: (1) Under what principles can courts give effect to domestic orders aimed at extraterritorial cyber actors? (2) How can mutual legal assistance, transnational asset tracing, and intermediary liability be calibrated to restrain cyber mercenaries without violating sovereignty? (3) What international cooperation architectures are feasible for rapid enforcement? Overview of how to work on this topic: We will review comparative injunction jurisprudence, MLAT and cybercrime frameworks, intermediary liability regimes, and propose procedural models and treaty-based cooperative mechanisms for cross-border injunction enforcement.

46. Legal Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage Traded Through Deep-Sea Mining Supply Chains

We analyze gaps in international law protecting submerged cultural heritage when artifacts are incidentally recovered or intentionally traded by deep-sea mining operators. Research questions: (1) How do UNCLOS, the UNESCO Convention, and emerging deep-sea mining agreements interact to protect underwater cultural heritage in commercial extraction contexts? (2) What due-diligence and reporting obligations should mining operators owe to flag and coastal states and to origin communities? (3) Can affected communities assert remedies or participate in custody decisions under current international instruments? Overview of how to work on this topic: We will chart regulatory overlap, compile mining contractor codes of conduct, examine state and company practice, and propose model clauses and compliance mechanisms to integrate cultural-heritage safeguards into seabed mining governance.

47. Sovereignty Conflicts Arising from Cross-Border Human Genetic Data Sharing and Global Public Health Surveillance

We probe how expanding cross-border genomic data sharing for pathogen surveillance affects state sovereignty, data protection, and benefit-sharing under international law. Research questions: (1) To what extent can states assert sovereign rights over human genetic samples and associated data collected during outbreaks? (2) How should international law balance public-health exigencies with data-subject privacy and equitable access to benefits (vaccines, treatments)? (3) What institutional reforms could harmonize genomic sharing with sovereignty and human-rights norms? Overview of how to work on this topic: We will analyze the International Health Regulations, Nagoya Protocol interplay, human-rights instruments, national genetic-data laws, and propose governance models that reconcile rapid data sharing with lawful restraints and benefit-sharing.

48. Indigenous Riverine Customary Rights and International Arbitration Over Transboundary Dam Projects

We examine whether and how indigenous riverine customary rights can be translated into legally cognizable claims in international investment and treaty arbitration concerning transboundary dams. Research questions: (1) What evidentiary thresholds and interpretive methods permit tribunals to recognize indigenous customary water rights? (2) How can states and investors structure consent, consultation, and benefit-sharing to avoid treaty breaches? (3) What remedies and injunction-like measures are available or should be developed to protect indigenous river-dependent livelihoods pending arbitration? Overview of how to work on this topic: We will conduct comparative legal anthropology to document riverine customs, analyze arbitral awards and procedural rules, and draft model consent frameworks and interim-protection mechanisms for inclusion in investment and treaty practice.

49. Attribution and Remedies for Environmental Harm Caused by Transboundary Wildfire Smoke under International Law

We explore the feasibility of attributing transboundary air pollution from wildfires to state responsibility and devising remedial frameworks for affected states and communities. Research questions: (1) Can state failure to prevent or suppress large-scale wildfires give rise to internationally wrongful acts when smoke causes cross-border harm? (2) What standards of due diligence and foreseeability should govern prevention obligations for wildfire-prone activities? (3) What international cooperation, liability, and compensation mechanisms are practicable for episodic transboundary smoke events? Overview of how to work on this topic: We will combine atmospheric science on smoke dispersion, state-activity and due-diligence jurisprudence, treaty law on transboundary harm, and policy instruments to propose liability thresholds and cooperative prevention-response architectures.

50. Granting Legal Personality to Ecosystems in International Investment Arbitration: A Comparative and Doctrinal Inquiry

We investigate the doctrinal implications of recognizing ecosystems (e.g., coral reefs, mangrove complexes) as legal persons in disputes between states and foreign investors. Research questions: (1) How would ecosystem legal personality alter state obligations, investor rights, and reliefable interests in investment arbitration? (2) Can tribunals accommodate non-anthropocentric interests within existing treaty standards (e.g., fair and equitable treatment, expropriation)? (3) What procedural innovations are necessary to allow ecosystems or their guardians to participate in proceedings? Overview of how to work on this topic: We will review comparative domestic experiments in legal personality for nature, analyze investment-treaty texts and arbitral jurisprudence, model hypothetical claims and defenses, and propose doctrinal pathways and procedural rules for integrating ecosystem interests into international dispute settlement.